Plenary, 22 Jun 2000

Meeting date: Thursday, June 22, 2000

Official Report 747KB pdf

---

Petrol and Diesel Prices

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-1026, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on petrol and diesel prices, and amendments to that motion.

In moving this motion, I am minded of Labour's campaign song in recent elections: "Things Can Only Get Better". Well, well, well. The singer remains the same, but the words of the song have changed. Now, it is "Petrol Can Only Get Dearer" or, "The Price of Diesel Can Only Get Higher". When people ask me, "What's the price of voting Labour?" I say, "£4 a gallon."

Will Kenny MacAskill give way?

Maureen Macmillan will have to wait until I have got started.

What has happened to the price of fuel under the Labour Administration? It has gone up, up, up. In 1997, the Tory foot was no longer on the fuel duty accelerator and the iron lady was replaced in the driving seat by the iron chancellor. Not only did he continue to keep his foot on the accelerator—he pressed harder. Labour's turbo-charged taxes have sent petrol and diesel prices rocketing, while fuel-injecting the chancellor's burgeoning war chest.

Last autumn, concerned that petrol prices had gone up by 25 per cent, I asked the minister in committee what representations she had made to the chancellor about the escalating cost of fuel. She replied that he had not asked her. Since then, they appear to have discussed matters on several occasions. Mea culpa—why did I ever ask? What did she say to him? The situation is worse now than it was then. Petrol has now gone up by more than 40 per cent and the price of voting Labour in May 2001 will be £5 a gallon.

The SNP's budget for independence includes a fuel duty escalator of 6 per cent until 2003. What will the SNP's changes in tax plans be to take account of that?

We made it quite clear during the vote at Westminster, when we voted against fuel tax rises—as did the Deputy First Minister—and that is what put matters on the record. The Labour Government put its foot on the accelerator and has continued to press it. We, to our credit, have said no to the fuel tax rises. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats can tell us why the Deputy First Minister argues one way down in London but votes a different way up here.

People know that the chancellor takes 80p in every £1 spent on fuel, but let us look at it another way. If fuel were an ordinary commodity, what would the retail mark-up be? What would be a fair profit in the circumstances? The chancellor's mark-up on a litre of petrol is not 3 per cent. It is not even 33 per cent. It is a scandalous and outrageous 333 per cent. If we consider other commodities, only cigarettes are marked up higher. At least in that case there is a health argument and an argument about costs to the national health service. Even alcohol comes nowhere close: the chancellor makes 62 per cent on wine and 40 per cent on beer.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

What about a comparable fuel? What about the Government's mark-up on electricity? That stands at 5 per cent. This is the ultimate usury—Labour is preparing for an election in which it proposes to offer unseemly tax cuts to the rich while extorting money from those who have no alternative but to buy fuel but who have few resources with which to pay for it. What other tax is at that level? Not basic rate tax, not higher rate tax and not even corporation tax. This is not about targeting congestion, nor is it about promoting transport alternatives; it is about raising £2.25 billion for a war chest. This is about fleecing us through fuel.

Why is fuel important? Its price affects every facet of our life. It is not only at the pumps that we pay; price increases affect the cost of every journey, personal or commercial. It is not only the end cost of products that we have to consider, but the wrecking cost on our road haulage industry.

What, in Kenny MacAskill's motion, will set all of that right? How much money will he spend on the sole initiative that he has identified? Where, from the available resources, will he find the resources for that?

If Murray Tosh will sit and wait, all will be made clear.

I mentioned the wrecking cost on our road haulage industry. This Parliament has had debates on other industries in crisis—from shipbuilding to the textile industry; from fishing to farming. Let us be clear: the Scottish road haulage industry is in similar trouble. There may be environmental Luddites who think that that is beneficial, but the cost of fuel has not reduced the number of journeys by a truck or lorry; it has simply reduced the number of journeys by a Scottish truck or lorry.

Our hauliers are trying to compete on an open highway when the chancellor is weighing them down with an extra load—higher fuel costs and higher excise duties. They are losing out to foreign competition, which is fuelling up on the continent and back-loading on the journey back. Fuel accounts for about 70 per cent of a road haulier's costs. In Scotland, a haulier will pay more than double the fuel cost of his continental competitor.

Jobs are at stake and an industry is threatened. But there is more. I have been pursuing the hidden costs that have been imposed by Labour's fuel tax and I have discovered some disturbing figures. For example, in rural—and, indeed, in urban—Scotland, transport to school is not a luxury but a necessity. I am not talking about the cost of parents embarking on the morning school run; I am talking about the massive cost to local authorities of carrying out their statutory duties. When I asked the Minister for Children and Education about the cost of running school buses, I was told that in 1997-98 it cost Scottish local authorities nigh on £80 million.

Some of my colleagues will detail the costs to individual local authorities, but I would like to concentrate on the overall national picture. It is a picture of money flowing south from the oil off our shores, of money flowing south from the pumps on our forecourts, and of a chancellor awash with our money. Meanwhile, here in Scotland, council taxes go up and the quality of council services goes down. This is the only country in the world to find oil and find itself getting poorer. All across the council spectrum, irrespective of the political colours of the council, the price is being paid in the increased costs of public services.

Let us consider the emergency services. We cannot do without them. We heap praise upon them for their selfless dedication, yet those essential services are cash-strapped—in contrast to a chancellor who is cash-rich. A paramedic says to me, "What is the price of voting Labour?" I say, "It's £3.21 million a year to put petrol in ambulances." A policeman says to me, "What is the price of voting Labour?" I say, "It's over £5 million a year, simply to fuel the vehicles."

Not at the moment. A fireman says to me, "What is the price of voting Labour?" I say, "It's £18 million in transport costs since Labour came to power."

Is Kenny MacAskill offering free fuel for fire and ambulances services? If so, is that another spending commitment to add to the SNP's large list?

As I said to Murray Tosh, Mr Macdonald should wait and he will be told.

What can be done? Two schemes deserve to be considered. First, a fuel duty rebate scheme is within the competence of this Parliament. Is it not within the wit and competence of the Executive to consider extending the fuel duty rebate scheme to school buses and other services? Has that been investigated or costed? At yesterday's meeting of the Transport and the Environment Committee, I asked the Minister for Transport and the Environment whether she had considered or costed that option. She said no. That is unacceptable.

Secondly, cheap fuel is available to certain categories and classes of vehicle, which may answer Mr Macdonald's question. The Finance Act 1995 allows the following classes of vehicle to use rebated fuel: tractors, diggers, mobile cranes, road rollers, gritters, snowploughs and mowing machines. Worthy machines and a testament to man's mechanical ingenuity—all have played a part in the construction of the civilised world. Seriously, I would not want to stop rebated fuel for gritters and snowploughs or any other of those worthy vehicles, but what is the logic of giving rebated fuel to those necessary machines but not to police cars, fire engines or ambulances?

Mr MacAskill criticises the minister for uncosted promises. What is the costing of that new pledge to provide rebated fuel for the emergency services?

I do not know what papers Mr Macdonald reads, but I read The Independent.

"Prescott gets £140 bn boost for transport".

Mr Macdonald may see it differently, but it seems to me that petrol and transport are related. Is it not possible that £140 billion might mean it is possible to say that police cars, fire engines and ambulances are as worthy of rebated fuel as mowers, diggers and tractors? Can he tell me why they are not?

The £140 billion will be spent on

"a £500 million extension for Manchester's tramlines, a new £180 million system in Nottingham and extensions to the Docklands Light Railway in London and the similar Tyne and Wear rail network".

Moreover,

"The Government will give priority to proposals that . . . will blitz congestion ‘hot spots' such as the M6 and M25 motorways."

What about the areas where we have problems? What about rural Scotland's problems rather than just the M25 urban corridor?

Is the SNP policy on rural petrol prices—it is, according to Mr MacAskill in the John o' Groat Journal and Weekly Advertiser and Duncan Hamilton speaking in Oban—that petrol prices in urban areas should be raised to the level of petrol prices in rural areas?

I do not know whether Maureen Macmillan is reading that from joined-up writing or whatever, but that is not the position. I believe there should be parity of prices. I do not see why someone who lives in rural Scotland should be discriminated against. I bet if the minister's Mondeo was filled up in Stornoway rather than in Edinburgh, we would see the Government doing something about it quickly.

To return to those worthy machines—is a tractor or a mower of greater social worth than a panda car or Medic 1? Apparently they are. Why do we not tell the chancellor that that is nonsensical and must cease? Let him provide from his ill-gotten gains the resources for our essential services. The price is being paid by ordinary Scots with no alternative to using fuel.

Yesterday, I actually received an answer to a written question. The question was:

"To ask the Scottish Executive what representations it has made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the classes of vehicles which are entitled to rebated fuel in Scotland."

That extends Mr Macdonald's question. What are we going to do about it? His colleague, Sarah Boyack, who is not here today, gave me an illuminating answer:

"The Executive keeps in regular contact with Treasury on a range of reserved issues which affect Scottish interests."

Blow me—that gave me a good explanation of why a mower gets the rebate but Medic 1 does not.

There is a fundamental flaw in Kenny MacAskill's argument, although I agree with many of his points.

Given that 6 per cent of the UK's fuel duty is paid in Scotland and that Scotland receives 10 per cent of Government funding, if fuel duty for public service vehicles was abolished across the UK, we would be 4 per cent worse off and our public services would suffer. Has the SNP addressed that fundamental flaw?

Like my colleagues, I do not understand the basis of Mr Rumbles's nonsensical question. [Laughter.] The fact is that the extension of rebated fuel—[Interruption.] Let us be clear: the 3.1 per cent—[Interruption.]

Order.

We are talking about the same fuel rebate that is given to ferry services and diesel trains, but which the Government chooses not to give to road hauliers. Why can that rebate be given to the mowing machine and the road roller, but not to Medic 1 or the police car? Why can it be given to the diesel train and the ferry, but not to the road haulier who carries the same goods that may be carried on the train or ferry? The Executive should give a better answer to those questions than that it is holding regular discussions with the Treasury on matters of interest.

My argument applies not only to someone who lives in the Highlands and Islands, but to many a shift worker, such as nurses or policemen, in the central belt. The price is paid not by environmentally unfriendly truckers but by those who come from Scotland. It is paid not from Westminster bounty but by cuts in essential services. It is nonsense that 25 years after North sea oil started to flow, and when Scotland is the major oil producer in the European Union, we have the highest petrol prices in Europe if not the developed world. Action must be taken and the Executive must stand up for Scotland. London's great fuel robbery must cease.

We have a proposed Trident campaign. First, we must end the disparity of fuel prices in rural Scotland—a litre of petrol is a litre, wherever it is bought.

Will the member give way?

No. I am winding up.

Why is it that when the Government worries about Manchester United being taken over by Rupert Murdoch, the Office of Fair Trading is able to report in a matter of weeks, if not days, but when there is a crisis in rural Scotland about the price people pay at the pumps, we wait for nigh on a year and a half? The Executive can take action—it could say that it will legislate unless that disparity is ended.

Secondly, there must be immediate action on emergency and essential services. We must let the chancellor know that—rather than simply have discussions with the Treasury about mutual interests. We must tell him that it is absurd that we are not providing those essential and emergency services with rebated fuel.

Thirdly, we must freeze fuel duty until we have a level playing field with our European competitors.

I move,

That the Parliament notes that since 1997 petrol and diesel prices have risen in excess of 25%; further notes that Scottish public services are being forced to operate under ever increasing financial constraints; recognises that the increased cost of fuel is a burden which must be carried not just by motorists, but which falls on all Scottish citizens through rising fuel costs to the public sector; believes that it is unacceptable that money should be diverted from over-stretched Scottish public service budgets to the Treasury in Westminster, and therefore calls upon the Scottish Executive to consider extending the fuel duty rebate and to examine the possibility of extending the availability of rebated fuel across Scotland's public services in order to ensure that money spent on Scottish services is spent here rather than being returned to London.

I listened carefully to Mr MacAskill's speech. I suspect that I would have heard it equally clearly had I not been in the chamber but in my constituency. He is a spokesman who does not allow facts to get in the way of a good rant.

I am grateful to the SNP for the choice of topic for today's debate, for two reasons. First, it gives me an opportunity to set out many of the positive measures the Executive has been taking to address the transport needs of Scotland's rural communities. Secondly, it allows me to highlight the hollowness and naked opportunism of the SNP's position, as revealed again by Kenny MacAskill this morning.

All members of the Parliament who represent rural constituencies recognise the very real concerns of many rural communities about high fuel prices and poor public transport services. Scottish rural motorists travel longer distances, spend a higher share of their income on motoring and have fewer alternative forms of transport available to them. The situation is exacerbated by the substantial differential between prices in Scotland's remoter rural areas and elsewhere. Prices in Sutherland, the northern isles and the western isles are, on average, some 7p to 9p a litre higher than prices in the central belt. As I know from my constituency, there are many places where the differential is even higher.

The crucial point is that the Executive is working hard to do something about the problems—working hard to make a difference on the ground in the affected communities. The Scottish nationalist party's agenda is different. Its interest is in soundbites and media headlines. Its tactic is clear, as has been ably demonstrated today: shout loudly enough and, it hopes, no one will notice that its policies are all noise and no substance. What is the reality of its position? Fuel duty is a sizable source of revenue. It raised some £24 billion last year. Despite what Kenny MacAskill has said at every opportunity, that revenue has not been disappearing into some mysterious black hole down in the accursed city of London. It is funding schools, hospitals, local government, environmental protection, and yes, transport, Mr MacAskill; Scottish taxes funding Scottish schools and hospitals.

The SNP's so-called budget for independence—there is a laugh—that was produced in the run-up to the election included the full 6 per cent fuel duty escalator up to 2003-04. The SNP would have been quite happy to spend the proceeds of the fuel duty escalator if elected. In the meantime, in his budget this year, it was Gordon Brown who took his foot off the fuel duty escalator with the lowest increase in duty plus VAT in 11 years. He extended the £100 low vehicle excise duty for cars to 1200cc. He reduced the VED bill for Scotland's lorries by over £4 million per year. Taking his last two budgets together, he has cut some £40 million from Scottish VED bills.

The Executive will continue to represent the interests of Scotland's rural communities in Westminster and Whitehall. By working patiently and constructively with the UK Government, we will ensure that a balance is struck between the interests of Scotland's fragile rural communities, the environment and our wider spending policies.

That is unglamorous, workaday stuff. Our opponents in Parliament would prefer the sound and fury of fisticuffs between this place and Westminster. That might make for sensational headlines, but it would not serve Scotland's interests. I am sorry to disappoint the Scottish nationalist party, but the Executive is not playing ball. [Members: "National."] The SNP motion calls on the Executive to consider extending the availability of rebated fuel across Scotland's public services. Any extension of fuel duty rebate would, however, fall to the Scottish Executive to pick up, not the Treasury. Perhaps Kenny MacAskill can identify which Scottish public services he would cut to pay for his uncosted extravagance. I am sure that everyone in this chamber—and in Scotland—would be interested in what he has to say.

Was John Prescott lying—or was The Independent misquoting him—when he said that £140 billion was to be spent over the next 10 years? If that is not a lie, or a misrepresentation by The Independent, we will get our share. Can we not spend that share as we wish, to provide the assistance that we need in those areas?

Kenny MacAskill quotes liberally from the press. I wonder whether the press is lying when it tells us that the Scottish nationalist party's finances are non-existent.

National.

Order.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can the member of the labourist party accurately mention the name of the party that we represent?

I would be obliged if the Presiding Officer could help me. I am not aware of making an error in naming the Scottish nationalist party.

The name of the party is the Scottish National Party, not nationalist party.

I am grateful for your guidance. I appreciate, of course, that the SNP is continually diluting its commitment to independence and nationalism, but I did not realise that its members objected to being called nationalists.

The Executive, unlike the official opportunists, must operate in the real world. As Sarah Boyack has made clear, we are taking enabling powers in the Transport (Scotland) Bill to allow the Executive to extend the classes of bus service for which fuel duty rebate might be paid. We then intend to consider, in the light of the Commission for Integrated Transport's review of subsidies to the bus industry in England and Wales and competing calls on our budgets, whether to extend the fuel duty rebate to community transport and school bus services in Scotland.

We will not rest there. In the programme for government we made a commitment

"to support the variety of transport links which provide a lifeline to remote and fragile communities"

and

"to support the essential role of the car in rural community life".

Sarah Boyack is working with members of the ministerial committee for rural development to deliver on that commitment.

"Rural Scotland: A New Approach", which was published last month, marks the beginning of a new approach to rural Scotland which will acknowledge its strengths and weaknesses, understand its distinctiveness and tackle its problems in ways that are attuned to rural circumstances.

We recognise the need to act now, with energy and purpose. That is why we have established a range of programmes to address the diverse transport needs of rural areas. The Executive is investing in new transport services across rural Scotland. The rural transport fund is providing more than £14.5 million in new investment over the three years from 1998-99.

The Executive is also supporting lifeline fuel supplies for rural motorists in Scotland's remotest areas. That is a very important area of expenditure and it is an important investment. So far, 13 petrol stations have been approved for grant funding.

Ooh!

The Opposition may hoot, but that is important investment in areas such as Ardnamurchan. If the money were not spent, people living there would have to travel miles upon miles to get their fuel. That important scheme has now been extended to assist with the installation of liquid petroleum gas equipment. The Executive is investing in new transport infrastructure to help local communities address local problems. The first and second rounds of the public transport fund have provided support for a range of projects across rural Scotland. Last November, we gave the go-ahead to a number of trunk routes of particular benefit to rural areas.

My friend, Fergus Ewing, will recall the £10 million investment for widening the A830 from Arisaig to Kinsadel—the campaign for which lasted 30 years. I could go on. I could cite example after example—the Executive's support for lifeline ferry and air services is one—yet Mr MacAskill asks us if we are spending money here in Scotland. It is ludicrous—in a ludicrous Opposition debate.

Last year, our support for lifeline ferry and air services was at a record level. It included £12.7 million for Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. That is money that Kenny MacAskill would divert from subsidy. His ludicrous, harebrained scheme would result in the closure of some airports in the Highlands and Islands.

Extra money has gone to rural Scotland as a result of the budget, including £2 million for resurfacing the runway at Wick and £3 million for Stornoway and Kirkwall airports. That is action on the ground. It is investment in the vital links on which Scotland's rural communities depend. It means a greater choice of transport where possible and help for people who are dependent on their cars and who have no choice.

That is what the Executive is delivering—not bluster, hot air and soundbites, which is all the SNP seems able to offer Scotland's rural communities.

I move amendment S1M-1026.2, to leave out from first "notes" to end and insert:

"recognises concern about the impact of fuel prices especially in rural, highland and islands areas where public transport alternatives are more difficult to provide; recognises that fuel duty is a reserved matter; welcomes the investigation by the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee into the bulk purchase of fuel for remote areas; welcomes the progress made by the Scottish Executive in implementing a comprehensive integrated transport strategy and investing in public transport projects across Scotland; in particular notes support for rural public transport services and the network for petrol stations in rural Scotland, as well as measures to sustain lifeline air and ferry links, including the Highlands and Islands; and further notes that the current budget for the fuel duty rebate would have no impact on Treasury receipts but would be a cost to the current budget for Scottish public services."

At some risk to my political credibility, I recently said in the Parliament that it is sometimes possible, when listening to Kenny MacAskill, to recognise something in there on which he is right. There is something in what he has said this morning that is right: the price of petrol and diesel is artificial. It is affected primarily by political decisions and by tax levels. He was also right when he pointed out that, in real terms, fuel prices have escalated sharply.

When Labour came to power in 1997, fuel prices in this country were broadly comparable with those in other European countries. Today, they are significantly higher, which presents us with real difficulties: it creates problems for our freight haulage industry, problems with revenue loss on the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, difficulties in our industrial competitiveness, difficulties for our tourism industry and real difficulties for people in rural areas. Those are important, sensitive issues that this Parliament is right to discuss. They are important to the people of Scotland and I believe that this Parliament has a representational role to play on them in relation to the Westminster Government.

We ought to have a sensible debate. We should reflect on what the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Committee has been doing to try to get at the root of the rural-urban disparity and to identify solutions that the industry—or the Scottish Executive or, more probably, the Westminster Government—can tackle. Those are appropriate steps to take and avenues down which we should proceed. Is not it a terrible pity that the opportunity to debate those issues has been callously disregarded and thrown away this morning?

Did Kenny MacAskill's speech address any of those issues? Does his motion address any substantive proposal to remedy the overall problem? His preamble was perfectly acceptable, but what measures and costs did he propose? He set out the problem and then ranted. He ranted in his press release, he ranted on the radio this morning and he ranted in the chamber. He made some strong points, but nowhere in his speech was there anything that represented a comprehensive solution to the transport problems of rural Scotland.

Will Murray Tosh give way?

Not at the moment.

Kenny MacAskill proposed fuel duty rebates for the emergency services. That is an option that it might be worth examining and discussing when we look at the bigger picture, but what did he say about the impact on rural motorists? Nothing. What did he say about private sector costs?

Did Murray Tosh listen to the speech?

I am referring to the motion, which ignores those things. Kenny MacAskill threw freight into his speech, but it is not mentioned in the motion. He will say outside the chamber that he would subsidise freight, but that is not mentioned in the motion. The motion is all about public sector costs. Mr MacAskill does not spell out how much his plans would cost and where he would spend the money, although he was challenged during his speech to do so. He said, "I'll tell you later." In the words of the song—"I'm still waiting." He did not tell us how much money it would cost and he did not tell us where he would make the cuts to fund his plans.

Kenny MacAskill said that more money is coming from Mr Prescott. We believe that, but Kenny has already made it clear in parliamentary debates that he would spend it on road construction. A fortnight ago, when Parliament met in Glasgow, he agreed with me when I said that we could spend some of the money on investment in railways. How much money is coming and how many times is Kenny MacAskill going to spend it?

Does Murray Tosh accept that if Scotland got its pro rata share of £140 billion over 10 years, the projects that I mentioned could be delivered in that time scale? Does he also accept that if that money were available, we could address the crisis in our rural emergency and other essential services, such as road haulage? Does he accept that the level of funding that is being talked about by John Prescott—and on which the minister would not comment—would provide for the delivery of that aim?

Once we know how much money is available for transport, I intend to be part of the debate about how we allocate it. I am not opposed in principle to the idea that the SNP has proposed this morning, or to other transport priorities, but we must examine transport expenditure and the problems in rural areas in the round. To propose a slice of a possible section of a possible solution to the problem is merely an apology for a motion. The motion is merely an opportunity for Mr MacAskill to rant. It does not represent a substantive contribution to resolution of the difficulties.

Murray Tosh seems to have forgotten that Kenny MacAskill plainly stated at the end of his speech that we must end the disparity that is associated with rural petrol prices in Scotland. Does Murray Tosh accept that the fuel duty escalator is a policy that was initiated by the Tories? Is Murray Tosh's case now je ne regrette rien?

If Kenny MacAskill had lodged a motion that sought support in principle and that included some practical suggestions on how to equalise rural and urban fuel prices, I would have been happy to say, "Good idea, Kenny. What a smashing idea for a debate. I'll vote for your motion." He did not do that. We are not here to talk about what he might throw away when he gets excited in his speeches; we are here to debate his motion and to vote on it at the end of the day. The motion deals only with a segment of the issue—it is a pitiful motion.

Kenny MacAskill is trailed as a great figure in the media. He is an impressive performer and the media love him. He roars and he bawls and he tears into the minister, who is depicted regularly as a poor wee trampled victim of Kenny's road rage. Kenny is the subject of awe. Kenny will sort out the minister. Do members know what he really is? He is not a source of awe or wonder. He is just a big loud voice—he is the wizard of Oz. I was going to say that the Minister for Transport and the Environment had come this morning in her little ruby slippers, but she has sent Alasdair Morrison in her stead. We have pulled the curtain aside to see what is behind it. What is there? There are a few ragbags of ideas. There is no message, no solution and there is not even a proper appraisal of the difficulties.

The motion is just a pitch for cheap and easy votes, which is—astonishingly—backed up by an attack on the Labour party, from which the SNP learned all about unseemly bribes. What is Kenny MacAskill's speech but a lot of uncosted unspecified, unseemly bribes? He has not even spelt out where we would get the money from, how it would be paid, how it would be passed on or who would benefit. Would councils benefit? Would the consumer benefit? Would the kids on school buses benefit? Will their fares be cut? We do not even know why he wants to do it.

I suggest that it might be appropriate to call for a medic soon. Will Murray Tosh reflect directly on the motion and the two suggestions that relate most obviously to the comments that he has made in his speech? Murray says that there is a role for this Parliament to make representations to London. Kenny MacAskill has asked for an extension of rebated fuel, a matter reserved to London on which the Executive could make representations. He has also made a specific proposal for the Executive to consider the fuel duty rebate being extended. Surely that would form a useful part of its extended policy review. There we have two constructive policy suggestions from Kenny.

I am perfectly happy to debate sensible ideas, but I do not think we have had an idea costed, laid out and described. We have had an attack on an overall problem, which is very real—I began by recognising that. We must do something to tackle the problems of rural Scotland, and urgently, but I do not think that the approach that is suggested in this motion is at all convincing or credible.

Will the member take an intervention?

I have taken three interventions and I must close.

Kenny MacAskill's press release said that he would exclusively reveal that there is such a thing as high fuel duties. Let me exclusively reveal something about Kenny. Kenny will shortly offer unlimited amounts of money, without saying how he will get it, to every citizen, council, agency and interest in Scotland, for every conceivable purpose. He will do that again next week and the week after that. He will do it every week in the build-up to each election. It is the same old stuff from the SNP—"We will spend more on everything, on everyone, for ever, but we will never tell you what it will actually cost or where the money will come from. We just want your votes and we think that if we stand up and make a loud noise we will get them."

This debate and this motion are an insult to the intelligence of this Parliament. They are an insult to rural Scotland, as they mean that we have passed up the opportunity to have a meaningful debate about an issue that needs addressing.

I move amendment S1M-1026.1, to leave out from "through rising" to end and insert:

"and calls upon the Scottish Executive to make representations to Her Majesty's Government with a view to ensuring that fuel prices in Scotland are kept broadly in line with those of neighbouring countries and that prices in remoter areas are brought into line with those in other areas of Scotland."

In spite of what members may think, the United Kingdom fuel tax is not a green tax. It is a brown tax—a Gordon Brown tax.

Over the past six years, the fuel escalator has been used as a blunt instrument, hammering car owners in an attempt to force people to choose public transport. The Government has ignored the fact that in rural areas access to public transport is limited or non-existent. Instead of investing the funds from fuel duty increases in public transport, and instead of accepting the case for special provisions and derogations for rural areas, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have used the mechanism to increase income from car drivers.

We need urgent action from the United Kingdom Government to deal with the unbalanced playing field between urban and rural transport as regards fuel costs. That means hypothecation and using the moneys generated over the past six years of excessive increases to fund transport and environmental initiatives.

When introducing the fuel duty escalator in 1994, the former Tory chancellor Kenneth Clarke said that anyone who dared oppose it while supporting the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions would be

"sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy".

The Tory Secretary of State for Transport, John MacGregor, claimed that the fuel escalator was good news for Britain. He said:

"Increases in fuel duty and motorway tolls will help people make informed choices about using their cars."

What absolute nonsense. Did they not realise that in much of rural Scotland people do not have a choice? Only now, when facing years of future opposition, have the Tories finally recanted on the fuel duty escalator that they invented.

We Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the manner in which United Kingdom Governments have implemented the escalator. At Westminster we have consistently voted against the fuel duty rises of both Tory and Labour Governments, because those measures stink of false piety. Tax rises have been forced through under the guise of environmental action.

I am sure that in the SNP we all agree that the fuel duty should not have been increased, as John Munro has argued. Why, then, did Charles Kennedy on 16 March in a press release state that fuel duty should be increased by 5p a litre? Would John Munro support his colleague, who represents the same constituency, on this matter, or vote against him?

I accept that that statement was made. It was addressing the congestion and pollution in urban areas of our country that we hear so much about. But Charles Kennedy went on to explain that there were measures that would address the situation in rural parts of the country.

In principle, as Liberal Democrats we accept the need to cut non-essential car journeys. We all recall that a royal commission in 1994 called for the doubling of fuel prices over 10 years to cut non-essential car journeys. Tory and Labour Governments supported those proposals with glee, until this year when it became apparent, even to Gordon Brown, that that duty was damaging the economy, rural areas and jobs. The royal commission and successive chancellors failed to understand that in rural areas there are no alternatives to the car. Practically all rural journeys are essential.

A Scottish Office study in 1998 showed that less than 10 per cent of rural residents used a bus once a week or more. Buses account for just 2 per cent of all journeys in the Highlands and Islands. The report by EKOS Ltd for Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Highland Council in January showed that the average mileage in the Highlands is 75 per cent more than the Scottish average. The same report showed that fuel prices varied between 5 and 15 per cent more expensive than the average in the central belt.

We need honesty in regard to our taxes upon motorists. A genuine environment tax to cut non-essential car use can be justified only if it is revenue neutral. Every single penny that is collected must be ploughed back into public transport and special provisions for rural areas. Liberal Democrats believe that motorists in rural areas are taxed enough. The fuel escalator since 1994 should have been used to tackle rural exclusion. Postcode-based allowances or value added tax derogations could have ensured that the effect of duty increases was ameliorated for rural motorists.

Scottish Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament Elspeth Attwooll has pursued the European Commission on the question of reducing VAT on fuel duty in rural areas from the current 17.5 per cent to 5 per cent. Westminster must be forced to follow that through. Liberal Democrats will support changes to the taxation and duty system that faces motorists only where such changes are entirely revenue neutral, and where rural motorists are given special protection against increased costs.

Issues around fuel duty are, of course, reserved to Westminster. We welcome the efforts that are being made by the Scottish Executive where it has authority. We welcome efforts to create a Highlands and Islands transport authority as a key part of an integrated transport network throughout Scotland. We acknowledge that £14 million extra has been invested in rural transport. We also welcome the action taken by the Executive to extend the rural community transport grant scheme, and the additional grants to protect rural petrol stations. The Scottish Executive is taking action, and recognises the difficulties that fuel duty creates in our rural areas.

I share the sentiments of Fergus Ewing, who was quoted in yesterday's The Press and Journal congratulating Ross Finnie on "speaking out for Scotland" on fuel duty. But I ask the SNP, is it really serious when it calls for fuel duty that is raised in Scotland to stay in Scotland, and for duty that is raised in England to stay in England? Only 6.8 per cent of UK fuel duty is raised in Scotland, yet Scotland receives more than 10 per cent of UK spending through the Barnett formula. An independent Scotland would thus mean an increase of around 50 per cent in fuel duties just to raise the same amount of money that we do at present.

Will the member give way?

I am winding up.

It is a serious issue, facing all areas. Liberal Democrats are coming up with solutions that will protect rural areas. I suggest that the Parliament should speak with one voice to Westminster, so that our rural areas get what they deserve: a better deal on transport and fuel tax.

We have until 11.48 am for open debate, and 11 speakers. If speeches are kept to about four minutes, it should be possible to fit them all in.

I was most intrigued by the minister's great difficulty in getting the name of my party correct. To help him, the name of the party is the Scottish National Party—I hope that he will get that right in future.

I was also intrigued by Murray Tosh's great diatribe. He did not seem to understand, nor indeed did the minister, that the SNP is offering, as part of this debate, two solutions to which we should give serious consideration: the rebated fuel duty and the possibility of using red diesel. We suggest to the Parliament that the Executive make the appropriate representations to the Westminster Government on those matters.

The Executive is looking for a detailed response. We have the facts and figures here, but we will not do all the work for the Government. Indeed, why should we also do all the work for Mr Tosh? If he had taken the trouble—since he was so concerned—and had paid close attention to the figures, he too could have had this information.

This is a serious Parliament indulging in a serious debate. It would be helpful if Brian Adam would specify precisely which services are to receive this assistance, how much money the SNP proposes to spend and which section of the Executive's budget it will draw the money from.

I am talking about money that is being recycled round the system. Mr MacAskill has suggested that such money might have a major impact on Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. In fact, all that happened there was that money was recycled from the Scottish budget to the Ministry of Defence's budget.

What we are doing with fuel duty is recycling back to Westminster a substantial part of the £77.6 million that is currently spent on school transport. The money does not provide direct services, which seems an inefficient use of it. Indeed, in Aberdeenshire, one of the areas that I represent, 10 per cent of that money is spent on school transport. Would the money not be better applied to providing more obvious services? It would be more fair and transparent if that money were being used for public services.

The education services in particular in Aberdeenshire have been cut, partly due to the poor settlement given to Aberdeenshire by Mr McConnell, but also due to the poorly run administration there, which has singled out education for cuts.

The suggestions that we are making this morning, and the figures that we are giving on how the costs impact on services, are fairly straightforward. I strongly suggest that the minister look closely at how—

Will the member give way?

Sorry, I did not notice the member.

I did not realise that I was so small and insignificant.

I did not hear the member.

Does Brian Adam agree with the comments attributed to Kenny MacAskill which appeared in a recent newspaper article? Mr MacAskill seemed to accept that EU rules mean that national taxation has to be applied at a standard rate and that the only apparent scope for alteration to the fuel charges is to surcharge motorists in urban areas.

It is quite possible to vary VAT. Indeed, Mr Munro mentioned that issue earlier. What we are doing here is recycling taxes, when they would be much better applied directly to providing public services. One of the major problems with taxation in this country in recent years has been the significant movement away from the traditional position of taxes based on ability to pay, to indirect taxes. That is a major factor.

John Farquhar Munro is absolutely correct: these are Brown taxes, not green taxes. They do not deliver improvements to the environment or tackle congestion. They are merely revenue-raising mechanisms.

We have made two significant suggestions and the Executive has the capacity to do something about it. The Executive will have its share of the £140 billion and the opportunity to allocate it. The SNP has made two positive suggestions about how to make best use of that money.

I cannot tell members how pleased we are on the Labour benches that the Scottish nationalist party has called this debate on fuel prices. It is important that this Parliament and the wider public are clear about the SNP's policies. However, as SNP members themselves seem far from clear, that might be an ambitious goal.

Having examined their various announcements and policy proclamations, I tend to think that the SNP members are having this debate to allow us to point out to them the inconsistencies, contradictions and gaps in their policies. They seem to treat this chamber as a consultation exercise, putting forward a number of differing, and often contradictory, options to test their validity. As a policy-making process, that technique is deeply flawed. SNP members owe Alasdair Morrison some thanks for his helpful critique and for pointing out where they are confused and where they have got it wrong, although they will be disappointed at the short time that he had at his disposal to do so.

The SNP has no answers to issues such as price differentials or public transport. Its economics would cost the Scottish people jobs, income and quality public services. By separating out fuel pricing from the wider issues of transport policy, the SNP will continue to flounder for an answer.

Why is it that, down south, when differential car prices vis-à-vis Europe are a problem, the minister can apparently consider legislation immediately? As I said, when Murdoch proposed to take over Manchester United, instructions were given for the Office of Fair Trading to investigate. However, it seems that the present Labour Government can do nothing about differential fuel prices, and is waiting 16 months, 18 months or longer for the OFT to report. If Labour can legislate on car prices, why cannot it legislate on fuel prices?

We are waiting for the OFT report, as is Mr MacAskill, who admitted in the John o' Groat Journal and Weekly Advertiser article that he was

"still looking for the best solution to the problem of exorbitant fuel prices".

He thinks that the OFT report will provide those answers, and so do we.

Will Mr Wilson give way?

I am just coming to Fergus Ewing; he can just hold his horses for a moment.

The SNP conference last year called for lower rates of duty to be applied in rural areas, and that position was recently reiterated by Fergus Ewing. Kenny MacAskill tends to agree with Labour that that is an avenue that raises false hopes and sets up a prospective confrontation with Europe. However, it is clear that the European Commission would rule out such derogations as being contrary to state aid policy or leading to distortions of internal markets. He criticises us for a lack of joined-up government, but there should be some joined-up opposition from the SNP.

That policy is not unrealistic only because Kenny disagrees with it. There are huge difficulties in setting the boundaries of the areas that would benefit. Reducing prices in one area would encourage people from adjacent areas to drive there to buy petrol. While promising the impossible for short-term popularity, the SNP neglects the long term by encouraging independence and the use of an expensive and polluting mode of transport. That is a further example of the hypocrisy, given its membership of the European Federation of Green Parties.

Labour's goal is to deliver a transport system that provides genuine choice for all.

Can Allan Wilson explain exactly how the fuel duty has affected the demand for petrol?

One of my Liberal colleagues has already quoted no less an authority on the subject than Ken Clarke, who said:

"Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 30 November 1993; Vol 233, c 939.]

The SNP is indeed sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy.

As we know, the chancellor abolished the fuel duty escalator in the last budget and hypothecated any money raised from the increased fuel duty for use on roads and public transport. That undoubtedly causes problems for the Scottish nationalist party, because the money raised from the escalator is included as income in its budget for a separated Scotland. Andrew Wilson and Alex Salmond had better get out the bookies' biros again to readjust the black hole that exists in the SNP spending plans.

Both at Westminster and in this Parliament Labour is implementing properly budgeted policies and initiatives allowed to us by the successful management of the economy. Those budgets are transparent and open to examination. The SNP calls for more and more spending, but refuses to show how it would pay for it. The motion put forward by Kenny MacAskill is as confused and misinformed as is the SNP's policy. He tried to paint a picture of Scotland-raised revenue going to London to be spent there, when we all know that the constitutional settlement voted for by the Scottish people means that the Barnett formula ensures that that money plus some more is returned and spent in Scotland.

Close now, please.

I am concluding.

You are a full minute over, so you are denying other members a chance to speak.

This fuel duty rebate seems, in practice, to be the same as ring-fencing public expenditure for use on fuel. It would take away the flexibility and creativity that we would allow public services to have. Kenny MacAskill's motion calls for an extension to the fuel duty rebate. It is yet another example of SNP faraway-tree, Enid Blyton economics, where it tries to increase expenditure by reducing income.

It has been a most amusing and entertaining morning. Murray Tosh complained about loud and noisy speeches. I am afraid that that is rather like the 1 o'clock gun complaining to the Noise Abatement Society. I do not want to offend any sensibilities; however, I will emphasise that I come from the Scottish National Party. After almost 70 years, can people please understand that that is its name?

More than a year ago, in May 1999, I entered this Parliament, driving up to the front on a 40 tonne truck. There is no truth in the appalling rumours that the newspapers captioned the pictures the next day, "The truck is to the right; she is on the left." That was the first protest to this Parliament and it was about fuel tax, in relation to the latest and most appalling hike by Gordon Brown in March last year. That truck was driven by Mr Russell Smith of Denny, who represents an old and decent family business. Mr Smith's business was about to be hit for an extra £70,000 a year by the fuel tax hike. That is an extra £70,000 that punishes a Scottish business, which started bravely as a haulier in the age of the horse and cart. Nowadays, 40 different haulage firms have closed within the past year. They cannot keep going against competition from such as the French, who fill up their diesel tanks in Calais—those tanks are extended so that they can manage runs up to Inverness and back. That is what we are forcing our Scottish firms to compete with.

We have forgotten about taxis in this debate. Taxi drivers, and private hire drivers, are suffering a direct loss of income for each driver of between £20 and £30 a week due to Gordon Brown.

We know that this tax is crippling tourism in Scotland. The Dutch, in particular, like to come to Scotland to drive around. They love driving holidays and many of them are among our caravanners. I love caravanners on the roads, unlike most people, because caravanners are exceedingly nice tourists. Look at how they are being punished when they arrive in this country and see more than double the prices that they pay in their own.

Petrol tax, parliamentarians, is not just a stealth tax. Look at the first five letters of that word—"steal". It is stealing from the Scottish public. It is grossly unfair. Scotland is Europe's largest oil producer, as we all know. Can members imagine any other oil-producing country in the world where the local inhabitants are so punished? Do the Texans or the Saudi Arabians pay more? Of course they do not, as oil producers, apart from this poor country, hold the whip hand. Scotland is kept poor because of the money that is stolen from its oil wealth.

Mr Morrison said that there was no black hole in London into which the money was being sucked. I do not think that he has visited the black holes that I have visited in London over the years. Mrs Thatcher built London docklands by ripping off Scottish oil money. I refer Mr Morrison to the autobiography of Dennis Healey, the previous Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said:

"But for North Sea oil Britain would have been bankrupt in the early 1980s and Mrs Thatcher would not have won a second term."

We are a rich country which is kept poor. I tell the minister and Westminster to get off our backs and let us get off our knees.

It must be obvious to anyone who has sat for hours in a traffic tailback on the outskirts of London, as I did recently, that discrimination against the private motorist by continual hikes in fuel tax is not working even in urban areas. In rural areas such as Argyll, the western islands and elsewhere in rural Scotland, the option of a viable public transport system to replace the private car is simply not available at a reasonable cost.

When Labour came to power, the situation was bad enough as petrol cost 58p a litre, but within three years it has risen to more than 80p a litre and, in some remote areas, to 90p a litre. That is a rise of 40 per cent. It has compounded difficulties in the rural economy, all sectors of which are under severe threat. It has loaded the dice even further and has caused distress by imposing the highest fuel charges in areas that can afford them least.

The average Scots driver has been paying the equivalent of 2½p more in basic income tax since Labour came to power. There is a double whammy, as the roads are getting worse, which causes extra damage to cars and therefore higher garage bills. We pay higher taxes for a poorer service. Out of the £2 billion that is paid in tax by Scotland's motorists, only £244 million—14 per cent of the total—is spent on roads and public transport. Scotland's road hauliers pay a vehicle excise tax that is 11 times as much as is paid in France. Where is the harmonisation in that?

The average price of diesel in Scotland is 72p, compared to an EU average of 42p. The economic impact on rural fuel stations is obvious and devastating. People cannot find stations at which to buy their fuel. At the present rate of closures, up to half of Scotland's fuel stations could close within five years. The main tourism competitor of the Highlands and Islands is Ireland, but every time a tourist fills up his tank in the Highlands, he pays on average between £16 and £18 more than he would in Ireland. How are we meant to compete? Argyll alone loses £10 million per annum—5 per cent—because of the failure of tourists to return, a failure that is caused by the price of fuel.

In the Highlands and Islands, motorists pay £88 million more in driving costs than do motorists in the central belt. On average, 15p more a litre is paid up there than is paid in Edinburgh. Highlanders are thereby paying a great deal more in VAT, which proves that there are already different tax areas in the UK. Surely it is time to find a simple method of giving a fuel discount in rural areas. That could be done by carefully studying the map of Scotland and ascribing a different tax code to rural petrol stations, to reduce the current unavoidable tax penalty on users in rural areas.

Tourism all over Scotland would be given a boost. The number of private car tourists has dropped considerably due to high fuel costs. Those high-spending tourists pass through urban areas on their way to rural areas. In particular, foreign users must be encouraged, as driving a private car in the Highlands remains a great pleasure, which should be promoted. Most small rural businesses, which are being crippled by the unavoidable overheads of travel costs and transportation, would be boosted by such a measure and would create more employment.

I am interested in Alasdair Morrison's good idea about LPG, which would be helpful to local residents, as long as changing to such a system was affordable. However, we must also get rid of the rural disparity of which Murray Tosh spoke. Why does the Government not use joined-up thinking to give rural areas a fuel advantage? Such measures have been successful in America and Canada. I say to the Executive: please take note and please stop the paradox of the poorest areas of Scotland making the largest fuel tax contributions.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that is very important to many of my constituents. I am neither amused nor entertained by this morning's debate. The motion is narrow. It should consider the broader issues of transport in the Highlands and Islands, the things that are important to people. I will address some of those later.

The Labour Government has recognised the problem faced by rural motorists and has abolished the fuel duty escalator. As Allan Wilson said, any future increases will be hypothecated to transport spending. The issue of real concern to people in the Highlands and Islands, in addition to the high price of fuel, is the differential between rural and urban areas. I can well understand the frustration and sense of unfairness that people feel when they see that petrol is so much cheaper in urban areas. There is no reasonable explanation for it; it is unrealistically cheaper. I look forward to the OFT report into the issue, which cannot come soon enough.

Will the member give way?

No, I must carry on, as I do not have a lot of time.

We should concentrate on what this Parliament and the Executive can do. The Executive is aware of the problem and has identified areas for support. There has been help for rural petrol stations with the cost of tank replacement and ground water problems. The Executive has also given local councils discretionary powers to provide rates relief of up to 100 per cent for petrol stations. Such assistance keeps rural petrol stations open. Had they closed, people would have had to travel longer distances to put petrol in their cars, which would have added to their costs. That measure was within the remit of this Parliament and has been delivered.

I urge the Executive to go further and to establish a Highlands and Islands transport authority. I also support Calum MacDonald's call for such an authority to be allowed to bulk buy fuel to sell on to rural petrol stations. However, that is not an easy answer. It needs to be examined in some depth. We need to negotiate with the petrol companies. Many stations are tied into contracts for many years. To establish a contract for one lot of petrol stations, which others cannot join, would create an unlevel playing field and would put more stations out of business. The policy must be considered and taken forward.

Giving an authority such powers would provide a wake-up call to the oil companies. They tell us that they cannot give discounts to the Highlands because not enough petrol is sold there.

Will the member give way?

I am struggling to fit into my time. I am sorry.

The SNP blames the Government for high fuel prices, but has not come forward with a solution. The SNP constantly takes the pressure off the oil companies, getting them off the hook. Brian Wilson worked hard to urge the oil companies to reduce fuel prices. That paid off when BP announced the scrapping of the retail zonal premium, which resulted in a reduction of 1p. Okay, 1p might not be enough, but it is a cut that would not have happened if we had approached the issue in the same way as the SNP approaches it—ignoring the role of the oil companies and focusing on the Government makes scrutiny of oil companies difficult. If we all took that line, we could not have done it.

The wider issue of public transport is really important. We must consider new solutions to address the shortage of quality public transport in rural areas. We cannot allow the debate to focus on the car. The car is an essential lifeline, but it is not the only one. The most recent census showed that in some of the most remote areas of the Highlands and Islands a third of households did not have access to a car. That is why we need alternatives, for example, community minibus or community car schemes to which all members of the community have access. The rural transport fund has provided funding and will provide funding for such schemes in the future.

Those are real, innovative solutions to problems that this Parliament can address. I urge all parties to come forward with other solutions to tackle the problem.

I have found the debate to be informative, interesting and significant. To Rhoda Grant, I would say that for the average oil company the margin on a gallon of petrol is less than a 10th of the chancellor's tax take. A proportionate response would be appropriate.

The key idea from the Labour speeches was that the fuel duty was somehow an environmental tax. Allan Wilson was challenged on that point. There is no evidence to support that idea; the fuel duty continually rises and the take continually rises, because the demand for petrol continually rises. Allan Wilson should examine the facts and not rely on Ken Clarke for economic advice. The fuel duty is an ineffective, distorted and—most important—regressive tax, which damages human beings as well as the economy as a whole.

The chancellor takes a mark-up of 333 per cent on average from a gallon of petrol. More important, the duty has gone up by 39 per cent under the Labour Government—five times the rate of inflation. That is the most distorted and damaging of Labour's economic policies. However, the most important point—and the reason why I was reading The Sunday Telegraph at the beginning of the debate—is the myth that the fuel duty escalator has been stopped. That is something that the Labour brief has persuaded the back benchers to believe, but it is simply not true. This year, pensions were increased in line with one rate of inflation—1.1 per cent—whereas fuel duty was increased by 3.3 per cent, which is three times that rate of inflation. The chancellor is guilty of a cruel lie and a distortion in the latest budget; by forecasting inflation at three times the rate that he increased pensions, he hit pensioners at the same time as he hit every person at the petrol pump. His policy is a lie and a deceit, which the chamber should condemn absolutely.

When the policy was challenged, the Labour party line was, "This is what the Tories used to do." I am the first to criticise what the Tories used to do, but even that excuse was a lie. Three days later, Labour had to admit that the policy was a Labour innovation, designed to hit pensioners as well as motorists. Those are the lies that are coming from people who are being paid a fortune to lead the country—it is a disgrace and they should be condemned. We should not have to rely on Her Majesty's The Sunday Telegraph to tell us the truth.

On a point of order. In the past, the SNP has objected to Labour members accusing other members of lying. Presiding Officer, will you rule on Mr Wilson's speech in that respect?

Such points have been raised in the past. I will double-check the Official Report—as I have on previous occasions—and take appropriate action.

I am happy to reaffirm my point that, if someone says that petrol is to be uprated according to inflation and uprates pensions by 1.1 per cent when petrol duty goes up by three times that, they have either made a mistake or told a lie. Either way, the chancellor is to be condemned.

Will the member give way?

If Malcolm Chisholm has a reasonable point, I will be happy to give way.

As ever, I have a reasonable point. As an economist, Andrew Wilson knows perfectly well that there have always been two official rates of inflation, depending on whether mortgage rates are taken into account. Gordon Brown's announcement was in line with well-established practice; certain inflation rates are used for certain upratings. There was no departure from decades of tradition.

It is an absolutely new innovation. There is one rate of inflation that uprates every benefit and pension in the country—the same rate should be used for uprating fuel tax. Fuel tax was uprated at three times the rate of inflation based on a Treasury forecast—everyone knows that a Treasury forecast is not to be trusted.

I ask Murray Tosh—wherever he is—to reflect on the fact that Kenny MacAskill has made two serious and considered suggestions. First, the Executive should approach the Treasury for an extension of fuel duty rebate. Alasdair Morrison should not simply say that that would cost the Executive money. He should have unallocated money in his current budget; if he does not, he should tell us so. He must consider and review the implications of an extension of fuel duty rebate. If that cannot be done, we should be told why. What are the constraints on the Executive? There is an inconsistency: why is a rebate good enough for road rollers but not for police cars and ambulances? That is a policy mistake that the Executive must consider. The Opposition's job is to press and probe the Executive on areas where its policy does not stand up. That is a job that, today, Kenny MacAskill has undertaken ably.

Labour members—and the Conservatives—must reflect on the fact that this is the issue for most people in Scotland today. The price of fuel affects everyone and the duty hits everyone hard. Those members can either stick their heads in the sand and pretend that the policy is not hurting or they can join us in condemning Gordon Brown for his lies, deceits and the appalling way in which he is treating Scottish motorists.

Although the price of petrol and diesel is a reserved matter, it is absolutely right and proper for us to debate it today. Even though we do not yet have the power to effect a change in the taxation system in Scotland, we can voice our concern at what are the highest petrol prices in Europe, if not the world.

Will the member give way?

I have only just started—however, I will give way.

The member says that we do not yet have the power to deal with such issues in this Parliament. Does he agree with his colleague Malcolm Bruce that we should have significantly greater powers over fiscal matters in Scotland to be able to do so?

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge that view. I agree entirely with Malcolm Bruce's comments and understand that devolution is not an isolated incident, but a process. [Members: "Oh."] Let us get back to the issue. Six years ago, I left the Army. My last posting was to the British military garrison in Münster, Germany; because of the huge cost of petrol in Germany, we received coupons for half-price petrol—I think that that is still the case. However, petrol in Germany costs 60p a litre and, as has already been pointed out, it is more than 80p a litre in this country. I find that situation somewhat ironic.

The Rural Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into employment change. The lack of public transport and the outrageously high cost of fuel in our countryside is consistently the issue that people have raised as the most important example of the difficulties faced by our rural economy. As part of its inquiry, the committee held one of its six public meetings in Laurencekirk, which is in my West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency. I can tell the chamber again about the strength of feeling that was expressed on this subject. If we could change just one aspect of taxation policy in order to help rural Scotland, fuel tax would be the one.

Will the member give way?

Not again.

I have not spoken yet.

I will let David Davidson in later.

Much nonsense has been spoken about the Liberal Democrat approach to petrol taxation. I want to make it absolutely clear that we support environmental taxes and the polluter pays principle. However, we do not believe that the high fuel duty imposed by Westminster can be supported because, as John Farquhar Munro rightly pointed out, it is a Brown, not a green, tax, whose purpose is solely to raise revenue for the Treasury.

Will the member give way?

Go on.

Oh, so Fergus gets in.

I was interested to hear Mike Rumbles say that fuel tax is far too high. In that case, why does Charles Kennedy want to add 5p a litre in tax to make it even higher?

As ever, Fergus Ewing has a selective memory. Charles Kennedy has made it absolutely clear that there are two halves to Liberal Democrat policy in these areas. People who drive up to 23,000 miles—[Interruption.] Do SNP members want to listen to the answer? People who drive up to 23,000 miles a year benefit from Liberal Democrat policies.

Not enough of the money raised from the poor motorist is used to fund alternative means of transport. More important, there is no recognition of the impact that such punitive rises in petrol taxation have on our rural areas, where driving a car is not a luxury to be discouraged, but an essential of life.

The Liberal Democrats have voted against fuel duty rises at every budget, due to the failure of successive Conservative and Labour chancellors to address the real issues. Does David Davidson want to intervene now?

Mr Rumbles, you really should be winding up now.

Okay.

Although this is a most important issue, we must not forget the efforts of the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition to help the situation. As well as the fact that £14 million has been made available for road transport initiatives, 350 new or improved public services and 53 community transport schemes have been assisted. Within the limits of its powers, the Executive is doing a reasonably good job. However, the Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that we will rural-check policies to ensure that they meet the needs of our rural areas, and we will continue to oppose the imposition of higher fuel duty until the problem is recognised by Westminster.

It was quite amusing when speaker after speaker spoke about the dearth of policy proposals in the motion. At one point, I thought that Kenny MacAskill was advocating that we go to work on a lawnmower. That would be a unique and innovative idea.

It would be cheaper.

But we would never get to work on time.

I get annoyed when people assume that petrol is much more expensive in the Highlands than it is elsewhere in Scotland. I do not think that that does too much for tourism. It is true that petrol is more expensive in the islands, but the prices are exactly the same in Inverness as they are in Edinburgh. The issue is not the Highlands versus elsewhere, but urban versus rural. Petrol is more expensive in rural communities in north-east Fife such as Anstruther, Cellardyke and Auchtermuchty than it is in the Highlands.

Pricing people out of the car and into public transport is a laudable proposal for overcrowded cities. However, there is no reasonable alternative to the car in most parts of rural Scotland, especially for tourists. From our office window, we can watch people taking a tour of the whole of Edinburgh in a double-decker tourist bus. To see the Highlands of Scotland would cost £200 or £300 in petrol. It is impossible to see the Highlands by public transport.

Alasdair Morrison and Rhoda Grant mentioned the investment in the petrol station at Klilchoan in Ardnamurchan, which is the most westerly point in Britain. However, the investment was aimed not at bringing down the cost of petrol sold but at allowing the petrol station to stay open. It would be misleading not to point that out.

I am concerned about the inelasticity of demand for petrol. Petrol—however high the price—is a necessity in the family budget that must be met before budgeting for food and other household expenses. That means that people on low and fixed incomes are penalised more heavily by petrol prices. The same applies to the cost of employment: travelling to work costs those in a rural area much more than those in an urban area, although the wages might be the same.

In the Highlands—despite the fact that residents of the area get only 80 per cent of the average EU income—car ownership is much higher than it is in the lower-income categories in major cities. Two thirds of people in the Highlands who earn less than £10,000 a year own a car. In Glasgow, very few people in that income group own a car. The car causes deprivation in low-income groups. It is ironic that the poorest members of our rural society might be paying more in tax on petrol than they pay in income tax. The repopulation of the Highlands and the stabilisation of the economy has gone hand in hand with increased mobility in the form of the motor car. As Mike Rumbles said, to price people in the Highlands out of the car would have a devastating effect on the fabric of rural life and might reverse the repopulation that has taken place.

Rural areas have benefited from increased car ownership as people have access to centralised public services and jobs while continuing to live in remote and rural areas. Many people would be unable to visit a hospital in less than a day without a car. They would have to pay for public transport and overnight accommodation and would also waste time.

Although this Parliament does not have the powers properly to address the issue, we can give a clear message to Westminster MPs—including those sitting in this chamber—that the matter should be debated in a place where decisions can be made.

A few words in preface: I have no problem with the calls from members to do something about rural fuel prices. Something must be done, and as soon as possible. However, that is not an argument against the fuel price escalator, a problem that I shall address in the few minutes that I have.

The Conservatives, in their wisdom, introduced the fuel price escalator; the Labour party has backed off it; the Liberal Democrats have two policies on it; and the SNP has at least been consistent in attacking it.

I shall present members with some figures to study so that they can make up their minds on the basis of reality. The first set of figures is from the period between 1993 and 1998 and the second set of figures is from the period between 1974 and 1998. From 1993 to 1998, UK policy was to increase the price of motoring to make it reflect more accurately its social and environmental costs and to improve the competitiveness of public transport. Most important, that occurred through the fuel duty escalator—a policy that increased the duty on fuel at above-inflation rates, in line with the recommendation in the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 1994 report "Transport and the Environment". The commission is now reaffirming that we need a general policy of high taxation on fuel, and Labour can take no pride in backing out of such an important policy before it has taken proper effect.

For most of the period from 1974 to 1998, the UK Government policy was characterised by an obsession with providing for private motoring irrespective of the consequences of such a policy. By 1998, rail fares had risen by 80 per cent, bus and coach fares had risen by 50 per cent and overall motoring costs had fallen by 1 per cent in real terms. We have therefore had only two years of a real fuel price escalator.

I advise Mr Harper that other factors must be considered, in particular the competitiveness of Britain internationally in the freight and tourism industries. Simply to press on with the fuel duty escalator and not to consider the relative prices of fuel in other countries could be deeply economically damaging, even before we start to examine the impact of the fuel duty escalator in rural areas.

I shall address those points in concluding my speech.

Huge advantages could accrue to this country if we adopted the simple strategy of economising on all fuels. That would save untold damage to our environment and would, ultimately, make this one of the most economically competitive countries in the world.

The SNP is in alliance with the Green group in Europe. It is not in the European Federation of Green Parties, which is made up of 30 Green parties spanning the old iron curtain. I am afraid that the SNP would not stand a chance of getting into that federation—at least, not at the moment. However, it is in alliance with the Green group. The SNP should be campaigning for a European fuel price escalator that would be effective in reducing environmental pollution and that would provide a Europe-wide efficient transport system.

Does Robin Harper agree that, so far, the fuel price escalator has had no impact on the environment in terms of a reduction in traffic? Can he tell us precisely how much extra duty we should add to fuel?

I accept that the fuel price escalator was just starting to have an effect when the Government backed off. The whole point of it was to establish an escalating series of economies. When someone bought a car, their first consideration would have been its efficiency. What is actually happening in the car market? An increasing number of huge, multi-purpose people-movers are being sold and the small car market has not expanded as one would have hoped.

I conclude by saying that it is sad that the Labour party gave up on one of the best environmental policies that it had been gifted by the Conservative party.

The cost of fuel in Scotland is a serious political issue. It directly or indirectly affects every person in the country. We must therefore approach this debate rationally, responsibly and intelligently. Unfortunately, the nationalist rhetoric that we have heard this morning has approached the debate in none of those three ways.

I have to say how frustrating it is to have to stand here, week in and week out, defending the union. I did not think that that was what this Parliament was supposed to be about. As long as the SNP continues with its pointless, petty attempts to drive a wedge between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament, I will not be able to understand the point of its being here.

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry. We have had 15 minutes from Mr MacAskill, plus all the rest. I think that we have heard enough from the SNP this morning.

In delivering an efficient and modern transport system, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive have to balance a number of competing considerations. It is important that our transport policies cater for everyone in Scotland—from people living in the centre of Glasgow who cannot afford a car to people living in the rural Highlands who simply cannot survive without one. We must also always be mindful of our environmental obligations. Legislative bodies cannot allow car use to escalate out of control, as that would cause tremendous environmental damage. We therefore have to consider ways of making everybody think twice about whether they need to use their car.

That thinking cannot be blindly applied in all circumstances. Central to the notion of getting people out of their cars is the provision of a quality alternative. Public transport must be improved before we can be serious about making a substantial reduction in the number of people using cars. I am pleased that a number of recommendations in the recently published Transport (Scotland) Bill address that problem.

I am also pleased that the Executive is providing £90 million through the public transport fund to provide alternatives to car use and to assist in innovative investment in new railway stations, new bus lanes, new rapid transport systems and park-and-ride schemes. The Administration is committed to providing a transport system that is genuinely for all. However, we must consider the rural issue. It is naive to suggest that people living in sparsely populated areas can survive on public transport. Although I represent an urban constituency, I understand that the public transport service in some rural areas is virtually non-existent. That is why I am pleased that the Executive has ploughed £14 million into the rural transport fund.

We would all acknowledge that the promotion of public transport in rural areas can go only so far towards healing the problem. That is why I was heartened to hear that the Executive will continue to discuss with the Treasury possible tax changes to help those rural areas that depend so much on car use.

This is a serious issue. Unfortunately, this debate has become just another attempt by the SNP to undermine devolution and to blame everything on England. The nonsense that was spouted about money from Scotland going to London was unhelpful and divisive. I am afraid that it was typical of what we have been hearing recently. I will not stand here and pick holes in the SNP's arguments, because I do not believe that that is what this debate should be about. None the less, it is interesting to note, as it has been by more than one person this morning, that the SNP is a member of the European Federation of Green Parties—[Interruption.]—which has strong views on fuel prices and which supports a considerably steeper fuel escalator than the one currently used in the UK.

Will the member give way?

The policies of the SNP fly in the face of its claim to be a friend of the environment. It seems that the party is prepared to say anything that has the potential to drive a wedge between this Parliament and Westminster.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I have finished.

The Liberal Democrats can agree with the SNP about the nature of the problem that we are debating. In truth, rural motorists have virtually no choice of transport. In my constituency, the bus network tries to cover the area; however, simply because of the geography, even the best bus network cannot give people access to places when they want it. Of course, we want an improvement in rural public transport, we want better bus services, and we want the rail services to be expanded, to provide a vital economic artery to ill-served areas of our country. No one will be surprised to know that I am thinking of the Scottish Borders.

However, in rural Scotland, the car will always be a lifeline, an instrument of social inclusion and a vital element in the economy. As John Farquhar Munro said, people in the countryside do not make non-essential journeys. That changes the whole pattern of how fuel duty impacts on people who use cars. Similarly, our farmers and road hauliers—the backbone of the rural economy—are massively affected by fuel prices. As Murray Tosh and Mary Scanlon said, all businesses that are associated with tourism are under the cosh when petrol prices act as a disincentive to travel.

We accept the problem—but the solution is not as simple as some people seem to think. The Liberal Democrats favour environmental taxes and agree with the principle that the polluter pays, but we cannot support the highest fuel taxes in Europe. Chancellor Brown must pay attention to the arguments that are being made today. Rural areas need a level playing field. In the partnership agreement, we acknowledge the concern about fuel duty but note that it is a reserved matter. The Liberal Democrats approve of the measures that the Executive has taken in its area of responsibility, such as the rural transport initiatives, public transport schemes and the community transport grant scheme.

Will Mr Jenkins take the opportunity to agree with his colleague Mr Rumbles that, although this is a reserved matter, it need not be in the long term and that perhaps in time Parliament could take that decision?

I do not think everything for the Parliament is cut and dried and fixed.

Pressure must be kept up on Westminster. Our motorists, hauliers and farmers need and deserve help. Our Liberal Democrat colleagues at Westminster will put pressure on Chancellor Brown. The Parliament is sending out vibrations that ought to be listened to. Although this is a reserved matter, we can nevertheless express a view and we must use such influence as we have.

This morning I talked on the phone to my insurance broker, who deals, in the main, with farmers. We discussed the small problem that I was trying to get him to sort out for me, then he said, "I note in the papers this morning that you guys are going to deal with fuel taxation." Nice of him to say so. He went on to say that he was going to the Highland show, which opened today. Fuel taxation is a major issue for the rural economy and presentations will be made about it at the Highland show.

The debate this morning suggests that most members, in one way or another, accept that the high price of fuel here in relation to the rest of the European economy is doing Scotland no favours and will be deeply damaging to the long-term prosperity of our rural community if something is not done, but who is to do it?

Dorothy-Grace Elder mentioned how nice it was to see so many Dutch people coming to Scotland. A couple of days ago, a garage owner in the Trossachs told me that he was at the pumps one afternoon when he saw a string of Dutch cars heading back to the coast mid-week, which is unusual. He asked the Dutch people if they had enjoyed their holiday and was told yes, but that they could not afford to go on to the Highlands as they had wanted—their budget was not big enough.

Today, we are supposed to be considering the economic issues, although when I listened to Kenny MacAskill's usual rant and cant, I lost the plot a little about what he was trying to demonstrate. If he is supposed to be the shadow minister, he has a duty to come to the chamber and present clear policies, although, by all means, he should question the Government.

I do not have time to take an intervention from Kenny MacAskill, and anyway there is no point. I will follow what one of his colleagues did to members who tried to intervene yesterday.

Having dealt with the SNP's role, I will move to that of the Conservatives—[Interruption.] Oh, behave yourselves, boys.

We should consider the role of the SNP and the Conservatives in opposition and, to an extent, the role of the Liberals—they are partly in opposition, as I am not quite sure on which side of the fence they sit on this matter. We could push collectively for the Government to go to Westminster—we have no argument with that approach. Since the election, we have said consistently that we should debate in this chamber the issues that affect Scotland. However, the thoughts that we take to Westminster must be rational. I would like those members who go to Westminster, such as Mr Salmond, to do a little more, a little more rationally, when they are there.

I am grateful to Mr Davidson for giving way.

Mr Davidson mentioned an insurance broker and a garage owner—no doubt they support the view that we should debate fuel duty today. He also agreed that we should hold this debate and take the case to Westminster. How does that position square with the view of Mr McLetchie, expressed in the Parliament two weeks ago, that we should not debate reserved matters?

I do not think that that is what Mr McLetchie said—Mr Salmond is misrepresenting his comments. Mr McLetchie said that we have the right to debate such matters, and that the only other right we have is to send a clear message to Westminster through the usual procedures. We are following those procedures—we have done so before; indeed, Mr McLetchie has done so himself.

The Liberals have come up with a range of policies today, which, I presume, are based on their federal position. It was interesting to hear them slate the cost of fuel, given that they want to raise new taxation through this Parliament. Where is the balance in that approach? My colleague, Murray Tosh, in his rationally delivered speech this morning, pointed out quite clearly that we must have a balanced approach. We cannot simply draw money out of the air.

Will the member give way?

I will take an intervention from Mr Rumbles, although I am not sure whether I have time.

It is entirely up to you whether to accept an intervention, Mr Davidson, but you are running close to your time limit.

Mr Davidson said that the Liberals wanted to raise taxes in the Scottish Parliament. That is not our position. I said quite clearly that devolution is not just a moment in time—it is a process. My personal belief is that we should have more control over our affairs in time. It is as simple as that.

So we can assume that Mr Rumbles includes taxation in that position.

The minister said that Gordon Brown had reduced vehicle excise duty on hauliers. Of course he did, but only after he had wellied up the prices in the previous year. The haulage industry is crying out for understanding, and taking one meagre step back, having taken five steps forward, is just not enough. I hope that the minister will take that message to ministers down south.

The minister talked about lifeline grants for filling stations, but will he move the ceiling up to which they are eligible for support? I know of a business that is associated with a small hotel and restaurant; because the total rateable value of that business comes to a certain amount, it does not qualify for Government support. What about the fuel loss for which those little garages are paying, which is disproportionate to that faced by garages with a high turnover? The minister should be paying attention to those issues, to which I hope he will respond at some stage.

Today's debate has been a little unseemly in places, but it flagged up the fact that this is a highly emotive subject. I welcome the fact that the SNP brought the debate to the chamber, although the way in which it did so is a shame. The SNP is asking for little bits and pieces, whereas we need a radical review from the Executive, with the help of the Westminster Government. That review should cover the action that is required to deliver a balanced and inclusive economy in Scotland.

Today we heard about policies of two halves, and this has certainly been a debate of two halves, with many MSPs debating the real issues of concern to rural communities, such as high fuel prices, the availability of public transport alternatives and sustaining lifeline links.

Many speeches were reasoned, realistic and delivered in a constructive tone. Janis Hughes and Andrew Wilson raised a number of serious and relevant points. My colleague Rhoda Grant, from the Highlands, mentioned the Highlands and Islands transport authority and bulk buying. We are making progress on a transport authority, and bulk buying will be an issue for that authority once it is established.

Sadly, others have chosen to play political games. The nationalist front-bench members have excelled themselves once again with vacuous rhetoric. I will answer one of the first charges that was levelled by Kenny MacAskill, when he brandished an article from The Independent. That article, which related a story about Prescott's £140 billion, was complete speculation. Such is the accuracy of the article that it says that the £180 million Nottingham tram is already under construction. In relation to Mr MacAskill's point on Scotland—

I am dealing with Mr MacAskill's point. I would appreciate it if he would allow me the opportunity to address the points that he raised in his opening statement.

The direct question levelled at the Executive—and at John Prescott—was whether Scotland would get its share. I stress that Scotland will, of course, get its pro-rata share once the UK settlement is decided in July. Decisions on Scotland's future spending plans will be announced in the autumn. I hope that Mr MacAskill—I know that he is a reasonable man—will accept that.

Will the minister take an intervention now?

With all due respect, I must make progress.

Mr MacAskill raised the spectre of the Treasury Dick Turpin stealing from Scotland's motorists. He ignored the fact that the sums that are raised go to Scotland's schools, hospitals and transport. The SNP proposes to extend the fuel duty rebate across Scotland's public services, but ignores the fact that the cost of such largesse would come out of the Scottish budget. Those who claim to oppose the escalator—including some whose party originally imposed it—must explain how, without it, they would have cut the deficit, made money available for public services at levels never seen before and, at the same time, met our international environmental commitments.

The nationalists are particularly fond of comparisons. Every time they go abroad, they return to lecture the people of Scotland on how the promised land could be found if only we were more like the country they have recently visited. I find myself in agreement, however, with my friend Andrew Wilson, who said that there must be more honesty on the tax issue.

Honesty means drawing valid comparisons—not just on fuel duty, but on information about taxation that adds to the cost of motoring. Different European countries have different ways of taxing motorists. When that is taken into account, more honesty appears and the comparisons should have the nationalists choking on their own rhetoric. The independently compiled world road statistics from the House of Commons library provide an objective comparison of the taxation that is paid by motorists throughout Europe in respect of various types of vehicles undertaking identical mileage and consuming identical amounts of fuel.

A motorist with a 1000cc engine pays £527 tax in the United Kingdom; that figure includes fuel duty and road tax. I invite Mr MacAskill and his friends to guess the equivalent figure in France. The answer is £640. Norway is another country that the nationalists are always wittering on about. The tax paid there is £821.

If Mr MacAskill and his friends, who do not like listening to facts, want to go to Iceland—and on today's performance that seems like a very good idea—they will find that motorists pay nearly £1,200 in tax.

Had Mr MacAskill and Scotland made it to Euro 2000, and had he compared his tax burden to that of his Dutch counterparts, he would have discovered that in the Netherlands the amount is a staggering £984, which is almost 90 per cent higher than in the UK.

Will the minister take an intervention?

The Executive must operate in the real world of hard choices and difficult decisions, not in the Alice in Wonderland world that is inhabited by some who have spoken today. That is a line that merits resuscitation. Mr MacAskill makes the politics of never-never land seem semi-realistic. Our aim is to deliver worthwhile transport improvements that are of direct benefit to rural communities. That involves action along a wide front; it requires patience and hard work. That is what serious government is about—it is not about frivolous soundbites.

I should make the very obvious point that running an Executive and managing a Government and an economy is not like presiding over the finances of a single-issue pressure group. That is why the Executive is supporting 350 new or enhanced public transport services through the rural transport fund, investing tens of millions of pounds in improved transport infrastructure through the rural Scotland fund, and investing record sums in lifeline services to remote island and mainland communities. Last but not least, the Executive is making the case for Scotland's rural communities in its dealings with the UK Government on tax, as on other matters.

We are working in partnership, rather than manufacturing sterile confrontation. The Executive is focused on making a real difference, and is determined to use the Parliament's power to improve the lot of our people, whether they live in rural communities or urban conurbations.

The SNP, as Janis Hughes highlighted, has once again used its allotted time to choose any issue in an attempt to drive a wedge between us and Westminster. As I have stated, we will continue to work with our colleagues at Westminster to the benefit of the people of Scotland.

There are interesting opportunities in expanding the availability of liquid petroleum gas; that was welcomed by Jamie McGrigor. That will offer huge cost reductions to motorists who acquire LPG vehicles or convert their existing ones. The Executive has made it clear that grants will be available for the installation of the necessary facilities. I understand that Brian Wilson, the Minister of State at the Scotland Office, has had extremely promising discussions with one of the major oil companies about expanding the availability of LPG in the Highlands and Islands. That is the sort of practical action that residents of that area want.

Again, we have heard contradictions and confusion on the SNP benches, which were ably highlighted by Maureen Macmillan, Cathy Jamieson and others. Duncan Hamilton wants to increase prices in urban areas to match those in rural areas. Fergus Ewing speaks of derogation from EU rules, thus raising false expectations, and does no service to the people of the Highlands and Islands.

Last, but certainly not least, Mr MacAskill tells us that he is still looking for the best solution to the problem of fuel prices in rural areas. If Mr MacAskill and his colleagues in the SNP were to take a hard look at what the Executive is doing to increase public transport provision in rural communities, I have no doubt that he would find some assistance in his search.

Every day since I was elected to Parliament, I have received representations from constituents and other people throughout Scotland about the iniquity of the level of fuel tax. There has been recognition, in this somewhat tetchy and ill-tempered debate, that severe problems follow directly from that.

I will begin with a few facts, which I think illustrate the extent of the problem. First, the fuel duty tax per litre in the UK is at present 48.82p, or £2.22 per gallon, which is the highest rate in Europe. Denmark and Norway have tax rates of 33p per litre, and Greece has a tax rate of around 20p. Scotland is Europe's major oil producer; as far as I am aware, the only type of oil that is produced in Greece is olive oil.

The bitter irony that is faced daily by my constituents in the Highlands and, increasingly, by motorists in every part of Scotland, is that Scotland—and Britain—has been singled out, of all the nations in the world, to have the highest tax and the highest fuel costs. For me, the interesting thing about this debate is that not one Labour MSP has said that there is anything wrong with that, just as at Westminster not one Labour MP from Scotland has had the guts to rebel on this issue and to speak up for Scotland, instead of following orders from Tony Blair.

Will Mr Ewing give way?

Yes. on the basis that Murray Tosh might make a better defence of the Labour party than have members on the Labour benches.

I am sure that I could, but Fergus Ewing will forgive me if I do not try. Given what he has said, is not it curious that the SNP has not lodged a motion that is designed to remedy the situation? The SNP motion focuses only on public services. Why does not the SNP have a comprehensive strategy that is costed, defined and explained? Why am I still waiting for an answer to the question that I asked Kenny MacAskill?

Murray Tosh might not know this, but I am pleased to say that when the matter was debated in Westminster, the SNP group voted against fuel tax increases in Scotland, while the Labour group voted for them.

One of the most iniquitous effects of having the highest fuel tax in the world is the impact on low-income families. According to one study, the total cost of motoring to a family in the Highlands and Islands is £50 a week. I remember well how the Labour party complained about the poll tax. The cost of the poll tax was about £10 a week, but Labour's fuel tax is about £50 a week for a family—that is five times worse. Why cannot we hear a single Labour member speaking out about the fuel tax, which is Labour's poll tax?

I am doing my best to attract interventions from the Labour benches, Presiding Officer, but no Labour members are rising. The Labour benches are static.

We are running out of time, so please press on.

Here is a Labour defender.

Given Fergus Ewing's stated opposition to the fuel duty escalator and fuel tax, why did the SNP build the revenue implications of that tax into its budget for a so-called independent Scotland?

Not for the first time in the debate, fiction seems to be creeping in. Janis Hughes contended that the SNP is a member of the European Federation of Green Parties. That is untrue, as is Allan Wilson's allegation.

I will answer the major point that was raised by Alasdair Morrison. He asked how we would raise the money. Alasdair Morrison—although he did not say this explicitly—argued that if our fuel duty were not the highest in the world, that would somehow result in a loss of revenue. I remind Alasdair that a couple of weeks before the election, a major haulier in my constituency went out of business. I had a two-hour meeting with the haulier to find out why and he said, "I cannot pay the fuel tax and the Labour Government is driving me out of business." The result is that the Exchequer lost all the income tax from that business, all the pay-as-you-earn contributions, all the corporation tax, all the fuel tax and all the vehicle excise duty.

If the Executive does not believe me, it should listen to the Road Haulage Association (Scotland) Ltd. That organisation told me this morning that lorries that travel from mainland Europe to the UK do not buy fuel in the UK. I say to Alasdair Morrison that it is not exactly rocket science—those hauliers do not buy fuel in the UK because the Government has made it too expensive. The hauliers can carry enough fuel to travel 2,000 miles. They do not spend a penny piece on fuel in the UK. It is about time that the minister started to listen to the Road Haulage Association.

I will take another unionist intervention.

Various SNP members have spoken at length about a reduction in the price of fuel to the public sector. At last, the SNP is beginning to recognise that the wealth creators of Scotland need help. If they do not pay any tax, there will be no public services.

I know that it is a novel idea to some Conservative members, but I am responding to the debate and I am addressing all the red herrings that were introduced by David Davidson's unionist colleagues.

I turn to Rhoda Grant's point about the Office of Fair Trading and the general issue of fuel prices in the Highlands and Islands. For decades, fuel prices in the Highlands have been higher than they are elsewhere. Mary Scanlon fairly pointed out that that now also applies in other parts of rural Scotland. What has been done about that issue? Nothing. Over the years, the matter has been referred to various so-called regulatory bodies, which have done nothing. The Office of Fair Trading is dealing with the most recent referral, which was made in January 1999. Its report was supposed to be out by Christmas; it is not yet out, but is now supposed to be out by this month. What will happen then? Will a refund be paid to the Highland motorists who have been fleeced by the Labour party? No chance. Will there be any action? There can be no action for a further 10 months, according to a letter that I have received from John Bridgeman, because even if there is a finding of profiteering and unfair trading, the issue must be considered by the Competition Commission. Once the commission concludes its investigation, perhaps some time next April or May—who knows, it may take much longer than that—it must take some sort of action. I repeat the question that Kenny MacAskill asked—if we can take action to reduce the price of cars, why cannot we take action by legislating to bring down the price of fuel? I would take any answers now, but apparently there is none. I am trying to stimulate a debate, but it is difficult.

Earlier in the debate someone mentioned a lawnmower. It seems to me that there is a strong resemblance between the Executive and a lawnmower—it moves very slowly, and there are lots and lots of cuts.

In the budget, Gordon Brown said:

"Today inflation is 2.2 per cent."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 March 2000; Vol 346, c 858.]

He then put up fuel duty by 3.3 per cent and put up pensions by 1.1 per cent. Can somebody lend that man an abacus? What did Gordon Brown say when his Treasury department wrote to a constituent of mine to try to explain what he had done? Did he say that he had put up fuel taxes, or that he had hiked fuel taxes for the fourth time in three years—quite a feat even for Labour? No—apparently, there has not been a rise in fuel tax. We have been labouring under a misapprehension. It was not a rise—it was an automatic revalorisation. I thought I should give Labour members the script, as this is what they will have to try to sell at the Westminster elections: Labour did not put taxes up—we had an automatic revalorisation.

Sometimes in life, things become suddenly clear. What has become suddenly clear to Scots is that if they want somebody to fight for Scotland, to stand up to Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, and to stand up for what the people believe, they should not vote Labour, but should vote SNP. I think that we will do well at the coming elections.